Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvel Disk Wars: The Avengers


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Tawker (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Disk Wars: The Avengers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Article is based on primary sources and a non-signification source, thus is not notable. Editors that is reversing a redirect instead of working in user or other draft space falsely claims that because an anime series is currently broadcasting it is notable, which is not a proper gauge of notability either under WP:MOVIE, WP:NMEDIA or WP:NOTE. Given, his adamant stance for a claim of notability, he wanted this brought up at AfD. Spshu (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The television series is already airing on one of Japan's major TV networks (TV Tokyo) and has enough coverage (in Japanese and English) to be considered notable: Oricon, animeanime, animeanime, Animate, Animate, Dengeki, Yahoo Japan, IGN, Anime News Network, Comics Alliance, Crunchyroll etc. Raamin (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Non significant"? I can only assume you mean the ANN source? That is absolutely 100% significant and is RS. I don't consider it's current airing as evidence of notability by itself, but between Oricon, ANN, IGN and Yahoo Japan News there is adequate coverage. I expect some more soon given that it only aired yesterday.Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note WP:NNC indicates that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content." Noted at WP:N: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." So being just a reliable source does not meet the notability criteria. Specialized news sites are not the world at large and thus give routine coverage. Spshu (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but in this case you seem to be arguing that four pretty big sites of differing interests isn't enough coverage. That might apply if there were only one or two sources, but the combination of number and the sites in question is more than adequate. Oricon and YJN carry substantial clout in supporting notability, IGN and ANN only serve to deepen that, which certainly suggests notability is a very real possiblity. If only ANN or IGN were talking about it alone, I could get behind your thinking more. As the article stood when you nominated it, I can see the point you were making. Raamin's links are rather more supportive of notability. However I'd like to see more if possible. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More: Hollywood Reporter, ICv2, Akiba Souken, Cinematoday, Dogatch, Presepe. Raamin (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - All provided examples are reliable news sources that explicitly cover the subject matter; they all support the notability of this title. Raamin (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim that what so ever as my previous post indicated (with bold added). Stating stuff over and over doesn't make it true. And I have been unable to confirm what sources you do have that they even significantly cover Disk Wars or not, some seem to cover more the band making the music. The source of Yahoo Japan article is not Y!Japan but CD Journal in any regards. Spshu (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's like saying BBC or CNN can't be used to source news because they repeat a story from somewhere else. Or you know, just about how every single news organisation works. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * At WP, we are suppose to be using the originating source if possible. Yahoo isn't just a news organization and probably doesn't confirms its stories from other parties. Spshu (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Spshu can cite notability rules that "not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation," but those rules then define that insufficient coverage as "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories." None of the sources cited so far by Raamin are directories, databases, ads, or announcements, and by my experience on AfD, minor stories are generally regarded as couple sentence or one paragraph long pieces, not the multi-paragraph articles cited here. It is true that a lot of these pieces can serve as PR, but they are not merely reprints of a press announcement, but reported pieces. Clearly and unambiguously passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * His original reason was "Disk Wars: The Avengers is, like any other television anime series that has aired or is airing, noatable(sic) ..." Nor did he indicate that he had any more sources than what was in the article, he just indicated he wanted me to take it to AfD. What was in the article was an two primary sources (Disney Japan & Marvel) and an Anime News Network article. Wikipedia:Notability: "...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." Specialized news sites are not the "world at large". Spshu (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When a television series airs on a major TV station, we could assume that there exist enough reliable sources about it; this is generally true. And all these sources don't need to be present in the article from the beginning. Raamin (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One issue before taking any article to AfD is this: as WP:NRVE states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Just because there are insufficient sources cited at one point in time does not mean the article necessarily must be deleted. As WP:BEFORE states, it is the responsibility of the person nominating to check themselves for sources before nominating. Finally, I fear your definition of "world at large" is not the one I've seen used at AfD. Having significant articles in multiple languages in reliable sources like Hollywood Reporter, Oricon, CD Journal, etc. is the world at large (see WP:GNG). By your definition, a special scientific concept could not have an article on Wikipedia cause only science journals cover it. This resembles the WP:ITSLOCAL argument that should be avoided. Michitaro (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I point out that Raamin requested (so he is a nominator too & failed to indicate any other sources) that it be brought here based on WP:ITEXISTS and Assertion of notability (basically). As he did not offer any additional sources and that the article with its reliance primary sources would stand up to the test. If he point out that he had more sources or not indicate for me to take it to AfD, I would have suggested to take it to sandbox or find a place where as a section, he could incubate the article. Barring that just a notability tag (it is just silly that editors go bonks over to the point of edit warring).  At this point, It's in the news seems to be the supporting factor for the keep faction, which isn't necessarily valid.  Claims that Oricon and CD Journal necessarily are notable source defies "Merely being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject does not necessarily satisfy this guideline." per WP:TRIVCOV. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to be misinterpreting AfD guidelines. First, WP:INTHENEWS merely states that not every event that reaches the papers deserve an article--though some in fact do. Wikipedia is not a news service. However, we are not discussing something in the news or an event, but a TV show that a durable object and thus is in a different category. I don't believe anyone, including myself, is making an "in the news" argument. Second, WP:TRIVCOV is reminding us that there must be significant not trivial coverage. But almost none of the articles cited here are trivial coverage: the show is mentioned in the title and is discussed in a significant portion of the articles. You are wrong to say they articles' main purpose is to cover a different subject. Note, however, what WP:TRIVCOV also says: "the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view." That's the point: is there enough to write a decent article? In this case, there is. Michitaro (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.